Mahadeo Property Investments Pty Ltd v Clinrad Goodna Pty Ltd [2026] QCAT 129

Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld), s 5A, s 5B, s 5C, s 5D, s 103

Retail Shop Leases Regulation 2016 (Qld), s 8, Schedule 1

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

[1] On 26 November 2025 the matter was referred to the tribunal by a mediator after the parties were unable to resolve the issues at mediation.

[2] The dispute is brought by the applicant, Mahadeo Property Investments Pty Ltd ("Mahadeo Property"), who is the lessor/property owner against the respondent, Clinrad Goodna Pty Ltd ("Clinrad Goodna"), who is the lessee/tenant. The key issue in dispute is in relation to reimbursement of costs for utilities.

[3] On 13 February 2026 Clinrad Goodna filed an application for miscellaneous matter (strike out) submitting that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction as the lease is not a retail shop lease and seeking the proceedings be dismissed. This is the reasons in relation to that application.

[4] The tribunal is a creature of statute and has no inherent jurisdiction so must find its power to determine disputes either in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ("QCAT Act") or an enabling Act.[1] The enabling Act is the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld) ("RSLA"). The RSLA and the Retail Shop Leases Regulation 2016 (Qld) ("the Regulation") provide specific pathways to resolve certain disputes between certain tenants and landlords. Not all disputes between commercial tenants and landlords may be resolved by the tribunal.

[5] Under the RSLA, the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear 'retail tenancy disputes'.[2] The phrase 'retail tenancy dispute' is defined in the RSLA to mean:

any dispute under or about a retail shop lease, or about the use or occupation of a leased shop under a retail shop lease, regardless of when the lease was entered into.[3]

[6] 'Retail shop lease' is defined in the RSLA to mean "a lease of a retail shop."[4] A number of exceptions as to what constitutes a 'retail shop lease' are contained in subsections 5A(2) and (3), however, none of which apply in this matter.

[7] 'Retail shop' is defined in the RSLA to mean premises that are:

(a) situated in a retail shopping centre; or

(b) used wholly or predominantly for the carrying on of a retail business.[5]

[8] 'Retail business' is defined in the RSLA to mean "a business prescribed by regulation as a retail business."[6] Section 8 of the Regulation provides:

(1) For section 5C of the Act, a business is a retail business if -

(a) it is a business mentioned in schedule 1; or

(b) its whole or predominant activity is, or is a combination of, the sale, hire or supply of goods or services mentioned in schedule 1.

(2) The wholesale sale of goods is not a retail business.

[9] In the present case, the primary question is whether this is a retail shop lease, in that was the premises used for a 'retail shop'? If so, there is jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. If not, there is no power for the tribunal to hear and determine the dispute.

[10] Clinrad Goodna assert that the lease is not a retail shop lease as:

(a) They used the premises for specialised health and diagnostic services which are clinical services, typically requiring medical referral and are not engaged in the sale of consumer goods or general retail services.

(b) The premises is not in a retail shopping centre as the centre has less than five retail shops so does not meet the definition of a retail shopping centre.

(c) When negotiating the lease Mahadeo Property's lawyer told Clinrad Goodna's lawyer that the lease was not a retail shop lease and the proposed use is not one of the prescribed retail business under the Regulation.

[11] Mahadeo Property assert that this is a retail shop lease as:

(a) The RSLA defines a retail business broadly and includes the supply of services directly to members of the public. Clinrad Goodna are accessible to the public and provide diagnostic imaging services to patients, which involves direct patient interaction and payment delivering to end consumers at a consumer-facing service location. The requirement for medical referrals does not negate the customer-facing character of services.

(b) The centre operates as a consumer service environment and has multiple tenancies providing goods and services to the public including Silly Solly's (a retail discount store), pathology services and radiology imaging services. The integrated nature of the tenancies creates a consumer destination environment consistent with modern retail service centres.

(c) A strict numerical interpretation of the statutory definition of retail shopping centre is not required and the tribunal may consider functional and operational characteristics including shared customer access and parking, public-facing services, integrated consumer use, and operation as a customer destination.

(d) The pre-lease discussions where Mahadeo Property's lawyer stated the lease was not a retail shop lease is not binding as the RSLA is determined by the facts and operations of the premises and not the labels the parties put on it. The statutory protections under the RSLA cannot be displaced by agreement.

(e) As factual issues are contested including how services are delivered, public accessibility, operational characteristics of the centre and consumer use patterns, this is not an appropriate matter to summary dismiss.

(f) Jurisdictional challenges can be used as a delay strategy by respondents and even if the RSLA is found not to apply, this does not defeat the substantive claim or extinguish Clinrad Goodna's liability for contractual obligations or Mahadeo Property's rights to enforce the contract. There would be unfairness and additional cost to Mahadeo Property as the applicant to access justice if the judicial challenge was upheld and proceedings were required to be made in a superior court. This would deny practical access to justice and the interests of fairness, proportionality and effective dispute resolution favours determining the matter in the tribunal.

[12] In addition to the submissions Mahadeo Property provided the first page of the lease document and three images of the premises and centre.

[13] The tribunal agrees with Mahadeo Property's submissions that where there are relevant factual issues in dispute, a proceeding should not be summarily dismissed. However, there are no relevant facts in dispute in this matter. A full copy of the lease was provided with the referral. The permitted use under the lease is "Radiology Clinic and other medical and/or allied health purposes excluding any medical and/or allied health purposes services provided in the Centre or in Goodna Family Medical Centre at Shop 57, 2 Smiths Road, Goodna Old 4300".[7] Both parties agree that Clinrad Goodna used the premises as a radiology clinic providing diagnostic imaging services to patients. In addition, while there is a dispute as to whether the centre meets the definition of a retail shopping centre, the facts about the businesses within the centre does not appear to be disputed. Issues of public accessibility, consumer use patterns, how the diagnosis imaging services were delivered, or characteristics of the centre are not relevant facts for the tribunal to consider.

[14] The tribunal agrees that little weight should be placed on the email from Mahadeo Property's solicitor during the lease negotiation asserting that the lease is not a retail shop lease. While that may demonstrate the intention or beliefs of the parties at that time of the lease negotiations, the parties' beliefs are not binding. The issue is whether in law, based on the legislative requirements, the lease is a retail shop lease.

[15] The tribunal agrees with the submission of Clinrad Goodna that the application of the RSLA to the lease depends on statutory definitions of retail shop, retail business, and retail shopping centre and if the lease does not fall within these definitions, the RSLA does not apply to this dispute and the tribunal will not have jurisdiction in respect of the dispute. Both parties assert that the RSLA does not provide an exhaustive list of retail businesses, and the focus is on whether the business is providing the sale or hire of goods or provision of services to the public in a retail context which involves determining if they are delivering to end user, accessible to the public and in a customer-facing location. This is legally incorrect. The fact that services are supplied directly to the public or the centre operates as a consumer service environment are not relevant considerations and there are many businesses that provide goods or services to the public which are not retail business.

[16] Retail business is defined in section 8 of the Regulation to be either a business mentioned in schedule 1 of the Regulation or a business which its whole or predominant activity is, or is a combination of, the sale, hire or supply of goods or services mentioned in schedule 1 of the regulation. Neither diagnostic imaging, health care nor medical services generally are businesses mentioned in schedule 1. Accordingly, as the business (being medical imaging) is not a business mentioned in schedule 1 and the whole or predominant activity of the business is not a combination of the sale, hire or supply of goods or services mentioned in schedule 1, this is not a retail business.

[17] A 'retail shopping centre' is defined in the RSLA[8] as a cluster of premises having all of the following attributes:

(a) five or more of the premises which are used wholly or predominantly for carrying on retail businesses;

(b) all the premises - are owned by one person; or are located in one building; and

(c) the cluster of premises is promoted, or generally regarded, as constituting a shopping centre, shopping mall, shopping court, or shopping arcade.

[18] Clinrad Goodna assert there are not five retail premises in the centre. This does not appear to be disputed by Mahadeo Property, who do not provide evidence that there are five retail premises and instead states there is not a need to rely on strict numerical interpretation of the statutory definition of a retail shopping centre and that the tribunal can consider other factors such as access, parking, public facing service and that the centre operated as a customer destination. This is not correct. None of those considerations are relevant and the only relevant consideration are the legislative requirements under section 5D of the RSLA.

[19] While Mahadeo Property state there are multiple tenants providing goods and services to the public, this is not the test, the test is whether they are retail premises. The assertions that pathology services and radiology and diagnostic imaging services are retail services is incorrect. In the photographs of the premises provided by Mahadeo Property only two retail businesses were visible, being Silly Solly's and Supercheap Auto.

[20] As there is no evidence to support a finding that there are five or more retail premises in the centre, owned by Mahadeo Property, and that the centre is promoted as or generally regarded as, a shopping centre, shopping mall, shopping court, or shopping arcade, the tribunal cannot be satisfied that the premises is in a retail shopping centre.

[21] Accordingly, the tribunal finds that the lease is not a retail shop lease as the premises was not situated in a retail shopping centre; nor was it used wholly or predominantly for the carrying on of a retail business. Accordingly, as this is not a retail tenancy dispute the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute under the RSLA.

[22] The proceedings are therefore misconceived and lacking in substance because the tribunal has no power to make the orders sought. It is a significant step to dismiss or strike out a proceeding prior to a full hearing of a matter; however, where it is clear that the tribunal has no jurisdiction then it is appropriate.[9]

[23] The tribunal agrees with Mahadeo Property's assertion that the jurisdictional issues do not determine liability or extinguish Mahadeo Property's substantive rights. It does not affect the validity of the lease, any liability of Clinrad Goodna or Mahadeo Property's right to pursue recovery in a court of competent jurisdiction. The tribunal dismissing these proceedings due to lack of jurisdiction does not impact Mahadeo Property's right in this regard.

[24] Any inconvenience, delay or costs to an applicant having to re-file in a competent court to hear the matter is not a relevant consideration in determining jurisdiction. The onus is on an applicant to make appropriate enquires before bringing litigation to ensure they are filing in a court or tribunal who has jurisdiction to hear the matter. Where a court or tribunal does not have jurisdiction they cannot hear the matter, regardless of the impact on either party of dismissing the claim.

[25] Accordingly, the only appropriate order in this matter is that the application for miscellaneous matters (strike out) is granted and the referral by a mediator of a retail tenancy dispute filed on 26 November 2025 is dismissed, pursuant to section 47 of the QCAT Act, for want of jurisdiction.